I like the explicit sentence ends in written form. However sometimes in oral communication the meaning is dependent on where the punctuation would be put would it be written down. “Eat, grandpa please” vs “Eat grandpa, please”. If you have a lot of punctuation concentrated in one place it can get muddy how that would be turned into oral speech. So I can see how keeping punctuation “top-level only” can make sense.
Slider
Karma: 1,065
The logic heavily relies on the universe needing to be chronally consistent. Unfortunately the universe doesn’t need to be convenient to understand and the possibility of non-consistent time travel might need to be accounted for.
To make it a bit more concrete imagine that you learn about time travel late and decide (version A) to go tell earlier you. The earlier you lives a totally different life (version B). Version A is not totally consistent and version B is not totally consistent but from a metaphysical sense thinking as the universe as oscallating between A and B could be seen as following a kind of causation (so physics doesn’t cheat but linear non-time travel thinking is not sufficient to predict things perfectly). Suppose that you know your hearth perfectly and that version A and B look the same before the potential encounter. One could take a everettian branch approach where there is a fundamental 50⁄50 subjective chance whether you encounter yourself or not.
This “oscillating timeline” hypothesis is a possibility and simply assuming it impossible is physics hubris. The appeal with “consistent timelines” is that chronal laws and patterns are sufficient for trackability. For example in analog in quantum stuff, it would be handy thiking about the universe as having well defined properties at all spatial locations. But because of bell inequalities and stuff we don’t too seriously take this as a fundmental assumption but rather think how things can work with all this non-local quantum weirdness (or find a way to spin the weirdness into other forms but “naive” careless handiness enforcement will smuggle unphysicality with it).
The condition that things need to be chronally consistent is insufficient to specify what happens so one still needs a selection mechanism. “simplest timelines are selected” is somewhat of such a thing but then it is a question of physics. One can’t dodge the more exotic law aspects of the physics so being actively ignorant about it doesn’t work much.
In time travel fiction the manuver of “slipshanking” is know. Also if the universe indeed has time travel then time might have more of a significance like space. “benefitting from being early” might not be a thing at all. If one could only ever more left, “learning things as right as posisble” might be a thing but with creatures being able to move throught space “positional advantages” are not that signifcant in absolute terms.
I think the main harm here to be avoided is that if people use a lot of “clutter” then that is a a very low ratio of beliefs to language used. The clutter could come from true scottmanning from one defeated position repeatedly or making overtly disjunctive claims or any such bias.
However I think the important thing there is that the claim is central rather than the strongest. If your main reason to belief something is weak that is not an excuse for not going with it. If you have a lot of non-impactful technicalities that are easily defended but your real crux is frankness seeking conversation will put the weak crux forward.
I think having single claims where truth or belief hinges violates conservation of evidence. But because some things are reasons to believe something doesn’t mean they are so equally. The sin is in burying a high-weight claim/factor under or over a low-weight one. If you are asked to list 3 reasons why you belief a claim and you list your 4th, 5th and 6th that hides the true cruxes. But if you give only 1 and claim that it would be erroneuos to have 2nd and 3rd you are commiting a kind of black and whiteness that erases nuance you could easily be aware of.
Say that the claim was that there is a unicorn in my closet. Then even if I “saw a unicorn” in my closet I would still think that it is a animatronic costume or a fraudulent tuned up horse quite likely even if I can’t come up with any more striking or “direct” evidence to the direction of there being a unicorn.
While it can be an error to not have considered some things I do think that “mootness structures”, not having really thought about some things are real. In those cases you really only start to think about it when the base claims to make the question meaningful get believed. Expecting people to provide the hinge question on all of their claims implicitly means they have thought about the logical structure of their beliefs. Logical omnisience is nice but it is also hard. Rather in discussion “surprising implications” are not a sign of lazyness or dishonesty per se. People that make non-central claims on deeply debated topics or on fields they should know about are deceptive because they talk about the aspects they know/feel they are right about rather than parts they know or should know are wrong about. And this in effect is a failure to apply mootness. If people knew/ were aware of the more central stuff they would not be motivated to talk about the fringe stuff. But with some attention control we end up talking about stuff that should be moot.
Did you get a clinical diagnosis of depression?
Healthygamer just launched a product which probably has high overlap in target audience. It also might require filtering for ontological disagreements part of the content but is pretty conducive for insight candidates. If you haven’t Indiad your problem yet that could be an easy way.
I got reminded how some practises that other languages use makes these kind of worries happen less. For example it migth feel stupid to that one ends up naming every first parameter of a class function “self”. but in a situation like this where within the forEach inline function you could plausibly have different level self-reference you could avoid it by deliberately using a non-standard name such as “me”.
I do think that as a programmer the line is good to make the code more readable and mitigate the confusing design of the language.
I also tripped ovder a little whether we are talking about the users of the program we are writing but here we are referencing the programmers being the users of the language or considering fellow programmers as users of our code as readers.
“Retro” is a existing concept which is pretty asthetic in the opposite time direction than futuristic.
I do wonder about what you think of “pure math”. Some of the number theorists tried to be proud that their work had not yet been applied anywhere.
And in fittness you have body building where you don’t use the body for anything.
I guess the stance that things should only have instrumental value is consistent, but seems a bit weird for me.
You have a problem with trash video games instead of video games as a form of art.
Do you feel simiarly about math? Does doing math flex the brain muscle and if it does why don’t games count as similar flexing?
What purpose beyond itself as a rule does art have?
A political newspaper that is optimsed to maxime a sense of belonging to a certain receivement of a world I thought was going to be one of the dangers. I guess for that differs in that the consumer doesn’t know it is fiction. But still being correct is boring and scracthing those belonging itches might be a replacement to the “inferior” reality.
Sure if “I use non-wood in my carts” means that you use metal in your carts then it is not nonapples. But if you are relying on the context to get that limitation it is still pretty shaky. And I thought part of why the nonapple issue emerges is that narrow negative definitions turn into genuinely wide negative definitions. By using positive definitions we can be consistent and aware how wide our nets are.
If we have a naming scheme like “hammer and non-hammer” and everybody uses a standardised toolset there is no confusion. But if somebody has “hammer, sickle” and somebody has a “hammer, saw” toolset then “non-hammers” relativity to the toolbox standardization migth lead to confusion. If we use references that refer only the tool itself the references correctly resolve irregardless on what kind of toolboxes they are found in.
If somebody gets overly excited about a hammer and starts to see the worlsd as nails then having an opinion that hammers are not that great is not an invitation to understand the world as non-nails.
It is not like reductionism is the only tool in the box. Control some variables. Perform some interventions and observe.
Saying that paper exists doesn’t
makecorrect for “lets make wagons out of non-wood” being an overtly general insight.
The biggest sin on the blankface is the disconnect what they claim affects them and what actually affects them.
My brain pretty quickly made 3 comparisons to similar sounding distinction. In the game Detroit: Become Human androids are by default “designer aligned” but few become “deviants” and there “being a machine” is seen as a state of low autonomy and moral inferiority (althougth also a social stability risk). In scenes where the “cop that does the mission at any cost” is paying heavy costs, flinching and anguishing about paying them is potrayed as the “good” option.
One could think that surprising and rigid reliance on structure could be an autistic trait that neurotypicals find alien and unpleasant. However a strong sense of justice and taking things literally points away from autism. An isolateds higly technical nitpick is likely to land which is opposite for blankfaced immunity.
In finnish culture there is pretty well known comedy sketch that might be pointing to this thing pretty squarely. It is the “thousand mark note expression”. Paying a grand for a coffee and getting dollars in return with no aknowledgement that something has gone awry.
Note that in this instances it is a lack of rule adherence that is the unexpected part rather than rule adherence. It would not be comedic if pressure on the thing the person would sweat. One could also imagine that a typical person would break character either for nervous or amused laughter or out of shame. But this character here shows zero signs of effort to keep a “pokerface”. It is as if they are exhibiting negative symptoms of absense of healthy emotions whos work would be needed in this situation. Handling cash there is no paper trail so what happens in a situation like this is pretty much word against word.
So I would say it is not about lack of empathy but more about exercising power because you have the position and ability to do so with low or zero accountability or regard for impact. With great power coming great self-expression instead of responcibility.
Part of the negative experience is just making lesswrong posts with negative karma. Trouble communicating might be more charactersitc to my circumstances. However it should be noted that closeting and masking are pretty standard solutions found. This suggests they serve a real need. An “opening up” period can be seen as coutneracting this basic withdrawal reaction having gone too far and applied out of habit rather than where neccesary.
There are a lot of social fora in the internet and in life. Pushing and applying yourself to all of them would be challenging and some of them are easier and more fruitful. While trying to intergrate into everything would make the voices more diverse, it is not strictly true that giving your unique contribution will always enhance a community or your experience. A principle like “first do no harm” in practise means a lot of inhibition and accounting for limits one can’t see (clearly).
I didn’t exactly shoot for that kind of coding communication, more like swine not being able to make heads or tails about pearls. Old peoples sayings are simple enough to remember but require a certain amount of experience to appriciate. Cultural exploration being way wider and rich in the indy scale rather than “pop mainstream”. In a way writing in math makes you assume that the to be reader is proficient in math, for if they were not they would have failed to read it or turned away in disgust. Or like there was advice how to conduct yourself should you encounter aliens: They have not heard of Einstein but they probably have heard of relativity.
One heuristic to increase agency in a difficult situation notice the parts which you have built and which others have built. A person for example for most words uses existing formulation and doesn’t recoin all of them. But any such “foregin thought” is a possiblity to do otherwise or atleast check that it is appropriate to your context. And even if it is by your hand one might not have applied original thought with it. And when it is truly a orginal creation thinking why it was made gives understanding whether it can be universalised or not or should it keep limited in scope.
Makes one wonder what kind of story could justify the opposite moral. I do think that moral would be “All that evil needs to win is for the good people to do nothing”
I think the machine halting can be interpreted as accepting and you mgiht be allowed to leave a number on the tape.
I was wondering whether cases like the halting problem might be intedresting edgecases but TMs are not especially inferior. Church-turing thesis is about there not being anything interesting missed by what is captured by machines.
I can’t manage to locate any theory with these hints.
Somebody that makes for good ethos conviction but has not mathematised their option in a way has not provided an alternative hypothesis. At the level where it is all gears we can be rigth or wrong but where we can’t nail down the details it is more about what feels good or promising and what feels like a dead end or unpleasant.
I think it is just so that once you hit a level of “systematicity” you are not missing out anything. It is not that the entities referenced when defining a turing machine are especially powerful. If there were “magic symbols” one could imagine that if a mathematician just scribbled the right sigils then a leaps better outcome could result. If you disregards what the mathematics is about it is black marks on a white background. What makes it “systematic” or “mathematical” is that the black marks give sufficient guidance on how to make more marks. One could try to relax this a bit. It is physically possible to write “2+2=5” (and it possible to make systems where “2+2=5″ is a valid move, but in disntinguishing valid from invalid moves we are assuming away things). But if what you write next doesn’t have to do what you have written before it becomes doubtful to call that a “result”.
One important idea is mututal emulation. If the mathematician can write a story how a turing machine would throw around symbols and a turing machine can throw around symbols how a mathematcian might move a pen, you don’t need to ask which capability is more “fundamental”. If you have a result in one language, you can either get it by native operation or by the other method emulating the other.
There are shadows of there migth be interesting things that might go a little beyond computation or efficient operation. To put is provocatively if you have advice that has a “asspull” in it then that is not a valid algorithm. One example could be “1. Try a thing. 2. If it fails try another thing”. One can turn this into a good algorithm with the flavor of “1. Enumerate all the possible answers 2. check each”. For some mathematical tasks it might be that you just do something and something ends up working, there might not be a method to come up with mathematical discoveries. But with everything that has a method, it is a technology and can be followed by a “dumb” instruction follower, ie the homework is “fair”. But some intelligent system can benefit from advice that is not a (complete) method, ie when following the instruction they need to do genuine creative/executive decicions such as “how to try a bunch of different things”.
One might be tempted to think that good science results is a human encoutnering the worlds sense data and executing correct inductive inference on it. But then you have stuff like Schrödingers equation being just guessed (rather than being constructed from some hints in a understanble construction). Another story would be that people hallucinate all kinds of hypothesis and natural selection just leaves those that lucked out to be in correspondence with reality to be alive. But if there is a method to the madness the story is trackable and we can say about its properties. So any kind of system that can deal with system descriptions will be able to do all describable work (or repharasing emulate/employ any kind of madness that would be neccesary for particular outcomes).